The Unpopular Review, Volume II Number 3 eBook

MINOR USES OF THE MIDDLING RICH

To assert today that the rich are for the most part
entirely harmless is to dare much, for the contrary
opinion is greatly in favor. Such wholesale condemnation
of the rich assumes a more general and a more specific
form. They are said to be harmful to the body
politic simply because they have more money than the
average: their property has been wrongly taken
from persons who have a better right to it, or is
withheld from people who need it more. But aside
from being constructively a moral detriment from the
mere possession of wealth, the rich man may do specific
harm through indulging his vices, maintaining an inordinate
display, charging too much for his own services, crushing
his weaker competitor, corrupting the legislature
and the judiciary, finally by asserting flagrantly
his right to what he erroneously deems to be his own.
Such are the general and specific charges of modern
anti-capitalism against wealth. Like many deep
rooted convictions, these rest less on analysis of
particular instances than upon axioms received without
criticism. The word spoliation does yeoman service
in covering with one broad blanket of prejudice the
most diverse cases of wealth. But spoliation
is assumed, not proved. My own conviction that
most wealth is quite blameless, whether under the general
or specific accusation, is based on no comprehensive
axiom, but simply on the knowledge of a number of
particular fortunes and of their owners. Such
a road towards truth is highly unromantic. The
student of particular phenomena is unable to pose
as the champion of the race. But the method has
the modest advantage of resting not on a priori definitions,
but on inductions from actual experience; hence of
being relatively scientific.

Before sketching the line of such an investigation,
let me say that in logic and common sense there is
no presumption against the wealthy person. Ever
since civilization began and until yesterday it has
been assumed that wealth was simply ability legitimately
funded and transmitted. Even modern humanitarians,
while dallying with the equation wealth = spoliation,
have been unwilling wholly to relinquish the historic
view of the case. I have always admired the courage
with which Mr. Howells faced the situation in one
of those charming essays for the Easy Chair of Harper’s.
Driving one night in a comfortable cab he was suddenly
confronted by the long drawn out misery of the midnight
bread line. For a moment the vision of these
hungry fellow men overcame him. He felt guilty
on his cushions, and possibly entertained some St.
Martin-like project of dividing his swallowtail with
the nearest unfortunate. Then common sense in
the form of his companion came to his rescue.
She remarked “Perhaps we are right and they
are wrong.” Why not? At any rate Mr.
Howells was not permitted to condemn in a moment of
compassion the career of thrift, industry and genius,